Pismos Are Capable of 1 GB of RAM!
From Ivan:
Hi Chuck,
I really appreciate your columns and perspective! I too, own a
Pismo PowerBook, a
October 2000 model. Mine was bought about a month before the Titaniums came out. It had
AirPort, 2 USB, and 2 FireWire ports for the first time. I started out
with a G3/400 and later had it upgraded to a Daystar G4/550, and I love
it! Maybe the last of the Pismos could take more memory. I saw OWC
prove that it can accept 1 GB of RAM. I run [Mac OS X 10.4] Tiger
on it (w/768 MB of RAM), because it can handle Tiger better than
Leopard.
That Pismo is so great and flexible (CD/DVD drive-Zip drive-empty
slot-extra battery) that I didn't feel the need to buy a new machine
for 10 years! I love it and still use it,even though I bought a
17" MacBook
Pro in April 2010. I can't imagine a laptop being better than the
Pismo! My 2010 MacBook Pro has more modern capabilities, but for how
long it lasted,the new ground that the Pismo broke (FireWire, USB,
AirPort, interchangeable modules ), it was and is the greatest laptop I
ever used, and it was way ahead of its time!
Thank you for your great columns, and for explaining to Mac users -
and computer users in general - that as long as your Mac does what you
need it to do, you don't need a new Mac!
Thanks,
Ivan
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for another Pismo review from a satisfied user
10 years on.
Both of my Pismos (May 2000 and October 2000) support
1 GB of RAM happily, although I'm running 768 MB in one of them because
I had a bad 512 MB module with an intermittent fault that had me
scratching my head for a while. To the best of my knowledge, all Pismos
can support 1 GB of memory.
Like you, I have a newer Intel Mac, but I still spend
about 2/5 of my computer time on the Pismos.
Charles
Stone Dead Pismo
From Dieter:
Charles,
I was delighted to find your article on the Pismo PowerBook. I have
one that I want to revive, but it is stone dead, even when plugged in.
Do you think there is any hope for it? I'm thinking it might be the
PRAM battery.
Such a shame that a fine machine that cost almost $5000 would become
junk like that for want of a battery.
Cheers,
Dieter
Hi Dieter,
Try unplugging the PRAM battery from the motherboard.
It's located just inboard and to the right of the trackpad once you
remove the keyboard. For illustrated instructions, see iFixit's free
teardown manual.
A Pismo should be able to boot up just fine with the
PRAM battery disconnected, although, of course, your settings will be
lost when you shut it down. If it does start up with the PRAM battery
disconnected, you know you need a replacement PRAM battery.
If that doesn't work, if you haven't already done so,
try a power manager reset:
If the computer is on, turn it
off.- Press the reset button located on the rear panel of the computer
between the external video and modem ports.
- Wait 5 seconds.
- Press the Power button to restart the computer.
Note: Resetting the power manager also resets the date
and time. After the reset, the system clock is set to 12:00 a.m.,
01/01/1904.
Other less likely possibilities are a fault in RAM or
the hard drive, or possibly even the motherboard and/or processor
daughtercard. If it's the motherboard, it's probably game over, but the
likelihood is that it's something else.
Whatever, a computer is just a collection of parts,
and if you can determine which one is causing the issue, you should be
able to bring the Pismo back to life.
Charles
iPhoto 11 Issues on 24" Late 2006 iMac
From John C.:
I would recommend that anyone with an iMac that has a GeForce 7300GT
[note: only the Late
2006 iMac has this GPU] not upgrade to the newest version of
iPhoto. There are serious graphical glitches that cause strange
artifacts to appear in the active window, and that's not even the worst
part. It manages to make the entire OS hang once the program freezes.
It's not uncommon to wait 5 minutes just to use anything on your
computer once it decides it is going to freeze on you.
This problem documented in Apple's forums for iPhoto 11, but there
seems to be no updates that will fix the problem. Apple should be
forthright about what systems are supported so that people can make
informed decisions about purchasing their software. I do not feel that
people have a right to have their platforms supported indefinitely, but
they do have a right to know if their system will meet the requirements
demanded by the software. Reading the forums (it's about 2-3 pages in
the iPhoto 11 installation & general use forum), it looks like a
lot of people bought the software under the reasonable assumption that
it would work and then ended up having to downgrade, which was time
consuming in particular if they did not back up their '09 libraries.
While this speaks to the importance of backing up, it does seem to be a
case of blaming the victim, which I feel is all too frequent on Apple's
message boards. Apple can do wrong, and we should hold them accountable
by either demanding software updates that will remedy these
graphics/freezing issues on their supposedly supported machines, or ask
that they state explicitly which machines are supported on their
software.
John
Hi John,
Thanks for the head-up about this issue.
This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I am
inclined to primarily use third-party software solutions - in this
context Photoshop Elements.
Charles
PS: I found this on Hardmac and thought of you.
"Many Mac users have had problems with the
graphics card in the iMac, especially with the 7300 and 7600 GT that
came in the last white 24" iMac. Phillipe, one of our readers was able
to repair his own quite easily...."
You can find more details about it on his blog.
It is in French but if you are interested, we can provide you with a
"translation.
"http://blog.crea64.net/?p=86"
Why No Blu-ray Support from Apple?
From Dan Bashur:
Charles:
Thanks for the reply. Indeed, those third party solutions are
available, but unfortunately even with those drives installed, you
still cannot achieve commercial Blu-ray playback in OS X. The
software is still Windows only. There is a workaround with Intels, but
it involves ripping the .mkv files off your own disks, and playing them
back in OS X using VLC. Google it and check it out.
I also wrote a very popular article* on commercial Blu-ray playback
in OS X a while back, Blu-ray Playback in Mac OS
X: Will It Ever Happen?
Unfortunately, everything in the article is still valid today,
unless things change with the next wave of machines that will ship with
OS X 10.7. Why can't Steve Jobs just make the call to unlock
HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) in OS X? The
hardware itself is HDCP compliant. One of the theories behind Steve
calling Blu-ray "a bag of hurt" stems from a feud between Intel and
Apple over HDCP, among other things. Intel owns the patent rights to
HDCP and likely wanted a bit too big of a piece of the pie. Another
theory is that piling on additional DRM would further cripple system
performance. I suppose that theory is dead too with the new Sandy
Bridge chipset. This ongoing feud seems to have cooled off (case in
point - Intel HD graphics, Sandy Bridge, early adoption of
Thunderbolt).
So why the holdout over playback in OS X still? It just doesn't
make sense. I'm sure Apple wants to sell more HD downloads on iTunes,
but if I already paid for a commercial Blu-ray and want to take that
with me and watch it in full HD on my new MacBook Pro, shouldn't I have
that ability? The competition offers this capability. Wouldn't this be
another good selling point for buying a Mac?
To me, as a media junkie and gamer (as much as I love OS X and
everything Apple), a Sony Vaio continues to be more and more appealing.
I can run Remote Play software and access my PS3 (to do a variety of
things) that is sitting at home from anywhere in the world where I have
access to WiFi. I can also use my LocationFree base station with a
Vaio, since the PC client is readily available (the Mac client is out
of print, not available for download and very hard to find from
a reputable seller). In addition, many Vaios have a Blu-ray drive with
commercial playback. You get everything multimedia with one
machine!
Apple was always proud of itself for greatly exceeding the
expectations of those who purchased its products. For the higher cost,
you were given technology that was on the cutting edge with
unparalleled design, and it could do almost anything a PC could do
faster and better. It seems that today, Apple is more concerned about
pushing its own proprietary content. Not a terrible business idea, but
I can't help but feel a bit alienated, when in 2000 (at a time when DVD
was relatively new), all Apple products embraced it. The Pismo had both
an expansion bay and a CardBus slot to support additional devices. I
suppose those simpler times when Macs were something a bit more than
exquisite are gone now that Apple is slowly becoming king of the
mountain. Long live capitalism!
Off my soapbox.
In summary, if Apple doesn't want to provide the drives as OEM,
that's fine. Just provide the support through OS X in 10.5.8
Leopard and later (universal binary) so we can use Blu-ray in a variety
of machines new and old.
- Dan Bashur
Hi Dan,
I've long since given up bending my mind trying to
fathom what motivates some of Apple's arbitrary perverseness about
compatibility with certain technologies. Flash, USB 3, and Blu-ray all
spring to mind as exemplars.
However, I think you said a mouthful with your
observation: "It seems that today, Apple is more concerned about
pushing its own proprietary content."
Not always, however. Apple has been in the process of
throwing FireWire under the bus for some time now, and it's one of its
homegrown technologies, but they're embracing Intel's Thunderbolt I/O
technology with open arms.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Apple to support
Blu-ray with OS X, but you never know.
As a general observation, however, I perceive that we
Mac OS veterans are going to be frustrated and disappointed with the
changes in course likely coming for the platform. Hopefully, there will
be some mitigating desirable aspects as well.
Charles
Safari 4.1.3 and Hard Disk Access
From Patrick in response to Safari 4.1.3 for Tiger: Fast,
but Not Perfect:
Mr. Moore,
Are you sure that the disk access you're seeing in Safari isn't the
phishing database (SafeBrowsing.db) being updated? I've seen behavior
like what you describe (disk chattering a few moments after Safari
launches, stops when Safari quits) if I open Safari on a computer where
it hasn't been run in a while. You could use fseventer
to confirm.
The disk access caused by updating SafeBrowsing.db is a lot less
noticeable on a faster computer (less effort to download and process
the file, the disk is acoustically quieter, etc.).
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Thanks for the observations. I've downloaded
fseventer. Interesting tool, although I've barely scratched the surface
with it yet.
Meanwhile, I've discovered that I jumped the gun a bit
in giving up on Safari 4.1.3 after only two days over the hard drive
background activity issue. Upon giving it another chance I've
discovered that the busy-busy in the background finally resolved
itself, and while I'm not giving it a clean bill of health until I
establish that the issue doesn't return, I think I'll be using this
build of Safari to take over the stuff I've been doing with Opera 10.63
on the Pismo.
I'm still not sure what was causing the activity, but
it may well have been updating SafeBrowsing.db as you suggest. I hadn't
used Safari for some time on this machine, and had done a system
reinstall in the interim.
Charles
Publisher's note: As Charles reported yesterday, he is now
living with Safari 4.1.3 as the default browser on his pair of Pismo
PowerBooks running OS X 10.4. dk
Safari 4 Hard Drive Issue
From Matt:
Hello Mr. Moore,
In your article titled "Safari 4.1.3 for Tiger: Fast, but Not
Perfect", you said that Safari 4.1.3 was busy on your computers. I have
also experienced this issue on my iBook G3/500 and my iMac G3/600, but [also] with previous
versions of Safari. So this problem is not unique to the latest
release, but I'm disappointed to hear that it still has not been fixed.
I feel that Safari 4 is the best overall choice for my old machines,
which are so slow that any speed increase is welcome. Safari 4 was the
fastest 10.4 browser I tested, both in terms of application loading and
page load times. Therefore I decided to find the cause of this issue so
that I could make Safari my main 10.4 browser.
After turning off different preferences and disabling plugins to no
avail, I turned to a web search. Eventually I found a suggestion to
uncheck the option "Warn when visiting a fraudulent website", which is
in the "Security" tab of Safari's Preferences. It worked like a charm
on both of my computers, and I have now been using Safari as the main
browser on both my G3s for several months. Of course this is a stop gap
measure (and one that fills me with some unease), but until I find a
way to actually fix the problem this is how Safari will remain on my
G3s.
Hope that helps,
Matt
Hi Matt,
I think it does, but can't be sure, since the hard
drive background activity issue resolved itself before I had a chance
to try your suggestion as a fix, but I think I'll keep that security
option disabled from now on with the G4 machines.
Safari 4.1.3 is now the fastest browser I've tried in
Tiger, although, as you apprehend, I expect it will be an ephemeral
answer to the OS X 10.4 browser support erosion. Safari 4.1.3
could very well be the last Safari version offering OS X 10.4
support, and with WebKit moving on to Safari 6 (with OS X 10.7
Lion?) and Mozilla having dropped Tiger support with version 4 of
Firefox, it's an open question as to how long browsers like OmniWeb,
Camino, and SeaMonkey will continue to offer Tiger-compatible
versions.
Charles
Safari 4.1.3 Isn't a New Update
From Dan:
I'm rather disappointed with Charles Moore's latest article
(yesterday) on LEM.
"Apple takes a lot of stick from users of older Mac
hardware for dropping support for their machines from later versions of
the Mac OS - and for older Mac OS versions from the latest
software."
Well deserved "stick", IMO.
"However, I want to salute Apple for just releasing
one more update of its Safari browser for OS X 10.4 users. Version 10.4
is not supported by the current Safari (version 5), but along with the
latest Safari 5 security update release, Apple also issued a Safari
4.1.3 update for us holdout Tiger users, and it seems to be a very
decent browser - possibly the best left among the diminishing handful
of up-to-date browsers that still support OS X 10.4."
Folx, can you please double check me on the version of Safari?
AFAIK, Apple has left us Tiger users with our pants hanging open -
there just is no corresponding security update for Tiger, to go with
the 9 March 2011 release of Safari 5.0.4.
Safari 5.0.4 update
references Safari 4.1.3
for Tiger, dated 18 November 2010.
"until I noticed that there was a lot of hard drive
activity going on in the background even when I wasn't doing anything.
I tried closing tabs. Still no joy.
"However, quitting Safari 4.1.3 ended the background
busy-work Starting up Safari caused it to resume. Bummer, that doesn't
happen with Opera, OmniWeb, or SeaMonkey, all of which I use regularly
on the Pismo."
This has been covered on the LEM
lists repeatedly, I believe. Safari is updating the Top Sites &
its site preview images. If you turn off the Top Sites, that background
traffic goes away.
"...the need to use an installer and restart the
machine after installation instead of just dragging the application
into the Applications Folder...."
Again, covered on the lists: Safari is not a self contained
app. It is an app plus a bunch of shared frameworks (WebKit, et
al). The only way to complete the installation of those frameworks
is to make everything accessing them - other apps and system components
- let go, which is most cleanly done with a reboot. Now, if you want,
I'm sure Apple could provide a stand-alone version of Safari. Then you
can deal with all the wasted memory from having non-shared sharable
libraries.
FWIW,
- Dan
Hi Dan,
Sorry to disappoint you. You may find the follow-up
column I posted this week more agreeable.
The Safari version is 4.1.3, and you're right, it's
the one released along with Safari 5 last November. I dropped the ball
in assuming that because it was linked from the Safari 5.0.4 update
page, it was likewise a new security update build for Safari 4 and
overlooked the date of release posted on the Safari 4.1.3 page.
I actually hadn't tried any version of Safari 4.1 for
PowerPC until a couple of weeks ago. My bro-in-law tried it on his
G5 iMac early on, had problems
of a nontrivial nature, and that made me wary, although it turned out
that his iMac was circling the drain at the time. It's since been
replaced by a Core i3 iMac.
However, I hadn't hear any other horror stories about Safari 4.1.3 in
the ensuing months, so coming very late to the party, I finally got
around to downloading and installing the required OS X Security
Update 2009-005 and then the browser. I still don't like the Safari
user interface as well as Opera's, but as I noted in the column, Opera
10.63 has some serious issues running on PPC Tiger, although lack of
speed is not one of them.
I appreciate that Safari's integration with the Mac OS
is what we have to thank for attributes like Safari's swift startups. I
just detest doing installer-based software installs.
Charles
PPC Browsers: Try TenFourFox
From Michael:
I'm sure I won't be the last to mention it, but a great PPC browser
in TenFourFox. This is
my main browser on my Quicksilver 2002 running
10.5.8/10.4.11.
Michael
Hi Michael,
I tried a beta of TenFourFox some time ago, and it
wasn't quite ready for prime time, as they say. I'll have to take
another look.
Thanks for reminding me.
Charles
Publisher's note: I've been running TenFourFox on my
production Mac - under 10.4.11 on a dual 1 GHz MDD Power Mac G4 and
10.5.8 on a dual 1.6 GHz (upgraded) Digital Audio G4. It's been
working reliably for me, although it's not my default browser (Camino
is), so it doesn't get the workout it would as my default.
dk
Getting Lion on an Early 2006 Mac mini
From John:
Hi guys,
Dan Knight wrote [in a personal email]:
"It's my understanding that the motherboards on the
Core Duo model are different enough that they can't support 64-bit
operation, which I'm guessing is Apple's reason for not supporting Macs
with Core Duo CPUs in Lion. I suspect you will need a model that
shipped with Core 2 Duo [to install the OS X 10.7 Lion Beta]."
Certainly my Early 2006
Mini won't boot into the 64-bit kernel in [Mac OS X 10.6] Snow Leopard let
alone [OS X 10.7] Lion, but that's true of many factory shipped Core 2
Macs. 64-bit apps meanwhile run on it just fine. It was the dual boost
from a much larger L2 cache and a good bit of extra clock speed that
tempted me to swap the 1.6 GHz Core Duo for a 2.0 MHz Core 2 Duo a few
years back. But the thought of 64-bit apps was also appealing, as was
upgrading my dad's 1.5 GHz Core
Solo with my spare chip. It was a nice move all round.
I'll write back once I've nagged the factory-shipped Core 2 Duo Mac
mini owner to let me try my boot disk. My curiosity is piqued as to
what's really different and whether there's potential for an artful
hack.
Thanks guys
- John
Morning fellas,
Yup, turns out it is just a motherboard lock. The
native Core 2 Duo mini starts Lion just fine, even with precisely the
same model of Intel CPU as its upgraded brother. Lion presumably relies
on the chipset to inform it whether a Mac is supported or not, rather
than the processor.
Looks like my old mini's locked out unless an XPostFacto comes
along.
- John
Lion Product Activation
From Alex:
I read in the second most recent Mac News Review that the 10.7 developer preview comes with
Microsoftian activation measures. And then you have the Recovery HD
thing. Those are the two secondary reasons I bought three Intel Macs,
and were things Apple harped on especially in the Leopard/Vista
timeframe. This may make them more money from unsuspecting users, but
if Apple really does utilize those two features come 10.7 general
availability, I will have to reevaluate my standing with my three Intel
Macs, because a familiar method of Spanish character input alone is
most likely not going to do it to allow me to continue to justify
purchasing Intel Macs.
I love what my three 10.6 Snow Leopard Macs can do, especially with
iLife '09, iWork '09, and Microsoft Office 2008 Home and Student, but
iLife '11, iWork '11 (when it is released), and Microsoft Office 2011
have me most disparaged, and I don't want 10.7 to thoroughly
disillusion me by removing MobileMe access from my three Intel Macs. I
am a devoted defender of MobileMe even with the $99 price, because once
you have three Intel Macs, two PCs that are connected to it, and even
one iDevice( in the shape of a 2G 16 GB iPod touch) like I do, MobileMe
can lubricate everything.
Instead, it looks as if Apple wants to replace an affordable $99 a
year subscription into an unaffordable $4,000+ and outfitting costs
every three years at most to keep three Intel Macs up-to-date, and that
is a power grab this longtime Mac fan (much less since OS X and the
Intel transition though) can't ever begin to justify.
I don't know about you, but I'll be sticking to Snow Leopard for as
long as possible with my current application mix, and when that gets
unable to do the Internet, I'll have to do one of three things I can't
stand to do.
I apologize, if I need to, that 10.7 is being turned into this club
that I feel is being used to bludgeon me, by obsoleting three of the
best Intel Macs a person could ask for, but it may be that I am just
not worthy of being a Mac person. I don't like that thought, but I
don't know what else to do.
From the iMac 2.8 GHz's purchase to the day the 10.7 paradigm shift
is complete, my Macs have been fun, and my Mac OS 9.2.2-running G3 and
G4 Macs are still excellent most (save for the iBook's AC adapter jack
messing up despite my incredibly great care in protecting it.)
To me, an Intel Mac requiring activation and only shipping with a
Recovery HD partition is too much a PC just with an Apple logo on it to
justify.
I just thought you could benefit from my thoughts or that the
readers could if you're kind enough to publish it.
Kindest regards and largest blessings,
Alex
Hi Alex,
Thanks for sharing your musings on these topics.
I too am apprehensive about what logistical changes
may be coming with OS X 10.7, being one who has not gladly embraced the
Mac App Store paradigm shift.
We'll really have to wait and see what actually
happens. If the new regime is not tolerable, at least Snow Leopard
should remain a capable platform for a good long time yet.
And, of course, there's always Linux. At this stage of
the game, I have little enthusiasm for switching to a different
platform and starting from scratch developing a production ecosystem,
but sometimes change is thrust upon us whether we like it or not.
Philosophically, I am far more in harmony with the Linux way of doing
things than the way Apple appears to be going with their "walled
gardens."
However, I'll keep my powder dry until I know for sure
what I'm going to have to deal with.
We'll see.
Charles
Ribbons for ImageWriter II
From Jeany,
Hi,
Do you know where I can find ImageWriter Ribbons? Can it be safe to
assume that they stopped making them?
It's for a retro 80's art project.
-jeany
Hi Jeany,
See this blog:
http://stason.org/TULARC/pc/apple2/faq/18-019-Where-can-I-get-Imagewriter-II-ribbons.html
Other places listing Imagewrter II ribbons:
Good luck with your project.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
